Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[BreezeWood]

.
How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.


what is then the role of an Almighty when there is self determination (I've done that for myself already) that is then used to suit their 4th century political agenda ...

they are not theists, they are simply equivocal "religionists".


- the misinterpretation of God would preclude their discovery not their existence and is the real reason verification has not been accomplished by humanity.

You mean you don't believe in free will?

.

You mean you don't believe in free will?

View attachment 106678


that's 4th century christianity, free will is a primary denial of your book - please refute the proof, your ad hominem attacks only verify the veracity of your depth -

just defending your awful religion is all that is needed for a forum.


so you believe you discovered the christian god ... are they speaking to you.

Is it possible for you to be anymore evasive? Do you believe in free will? Yes or no?

.

How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.

Is it possible for you to be anymore evasive? Do you believe in free will? Yes or no?

it is your inturpritation beuing discussed.

defend your religion, your ad hominem attack (You mean you don't believe in free will?) is not the subject and serves no purpose for a discussion board.

It goes to your comment about the role of an Almighty when there is self determination. We do have a choice. That choice is called free will. You either believe in it or you believe in fatalism. Your call. You seem like a fatalistic person to me.

.

It goes to your comment about the role of an Almighty when there is self determination. We do have a choice. That choice is called free will. You either believe in it or you believe in fatalism. Your call. You seem like a fatalistic person to me.

your response is ridiculous - your history is repression, there is no free will when you murder who disagree with you - defend your bankrupt religion there is no greater intellectual dead end than 4th century christianity.

 

[Czernobog]

Only if you were certain that it had been created, let alone created by WillReadmore. You see, you are saying that we can examine the universe to understand the nature of God, not to prove the existence of God. God's existence is being presumed. You keep trying this line of thought, and I keep pointing out that you are trying to put the cart before the horse.

No. I could study it regardless. See? I am studying it right now.

I think the question is whether there is a possibility of coming to a valid conclusion on the existence of god by using the tools of science.

It's NOT whether you can study stuff. Anyone can do that.

The point I'd like to make is that science is never going to answer the question of whether god exists regardless of how much you study.

The problem is that the tool wasn't designed for that purpose.

I agree. We can not directly prove the supernatural through the natural. Which begs the question, why do people keep demanding that we do? That seems illogical at best and disingenuous at worst. I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I've done that for myself already. That is a decision each person must make for himself. I am trying to prove that there is evidence that can be used to inform that decision. How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.

.

I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I've done that for myself already ... How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.

How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.


what is then the role of an Almighty when there is self determination (I've done that for myself already) that is then used to suit their 4th century political agenda ...

they are not theists, they are simply equivocal "religionists".


- the misinterpretation of God would preclude their discovery not their existence and is the real reason verification has not been accomplished by humanity.

You mean you don't believe in free will?

Ya know, Breezewood isn't interested in pursuing your question, but I am curious.

You have claimed, on this very thread, that the entirety of the universe - up to, and including the very evolution of our species, and, one must assume, the development of the individuals within that species, yourself, and myself included - I'm curious how you reconcile that predestination with the concept of free will?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[ding]

No. I could study it regardless. See? I am studying it right now.

I think the question is whether there is a possibility of coming to a valid conclusion on the existence of god by using the tools of science.

It's NOT whether you can study stuff. Anyone can do that.

The point I'd like to make is that science is never going to answer the question of whether god exists regardless of how much you study.

The problem is that the tool wasn't designed for that purpose.

I agree. We can not directly prove the supernatural through the natural. Which begs the question, why do people keep demanding that we do? That seems illogical at best and disingenuous at worst. I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I've done that for myself already. That is a decision each person must make for himself. I am trying to prove that there is evidence that can be used to inform that decision. How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.

.

I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I've done that for myself already ... How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.

How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.


what is then the role of an Almighty when there is self determination (I've done that for myself already) that is then used to suit their 4th century political agenda ...

they are not theists, they are simply equivocal "religionists".


- the misinterpretation of God would preclude their discovery not their existence and is the real reason verification has not been accomplished by humanity.

You mean you don't believe in free will?

Ya know, Breezewood isn't interested in pursuing your question, but I am curious.

You have claimed, on this very thread, that the entirety of the universe - up to, and including the very evolution of our species, and, one must assume, the development of the individuals within that species, yourself, and myself included - I'm curious how you reconcile that predestination with the concept of free will?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yes, he does have a one track mind. I never claimed specific individuals were predestined, just merely beings that know and create. There is no conflict that I am aware of.

 

[Mudda]

I think the question is whether there is a possibility of coming to a valid conclusion on the existence of god by using the tools of science.

It's NOT whether you can study stuff. Anyone can do that.

The point I'd like to make is that science is never going to answer the question of whether god exists regardless of how much you study.

The problem is that the tool wasn't designed for that purpose.

I agree. We can not directly prove the supernatural through the natural. Which begs the question, why do people keep demanding that we do? That seems illogical at best and disingenuous at worst. I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I've done that for myself already. That is a decision each person must make for himself. I am trying to prove that there is evidence that can be used to inform that decision. How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.

.

I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I've done that for myself already ... How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.

How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.


what is then the role of an Almighty when there is self determination (I've done that for myself already) that is then used to suit their 4th century political agenda ...

they are not theists, they are simply equivocal "religionists".


- the misinterpretation of God would preclude their discovery not their existence and is the real reason verification has not been accomplished by humanity.

You mean you don't believe in free will?

Ya know, Breezewood isn't interested in pursuing your question, but I am curious.

You have claimed, on this very thread, that the entirety of the universe - up to, and including the very evolution of our species, and, one must assume, the development of the individuals within that species, yourself, and myself included - I'm curious how you reconcile that predestination with the concept of free will?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yes, he does have a one track mind. I never claimed specific individuals were predestined, just merely beings that know and create. There is no conflict that I am aware of.

Why are we predestined? Nothing at the BB shows that.

 

[BreezeWood]

I think the question is whether there is a possibility of coming to a valid conclusion on the existence of god by using the tools of science.

It's NOT whether you can study stuff. Anyone can do that.

The point I'd like to make is that science is never going to answer the question of whether god exists regardless of how much you study.

The problem is that the tool wasn't designed for that purpose.

I agree. We can not directly prove the supernatural through the natural. Which begs the question, why do people keep demanding that we do? That seems illogical at best and disingenuous at worst. I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I've done that for myself already. That is a decision each person must make for himself. I am trying to prove that there is evidence that can be used to inform that decision. How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.

.

I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I've done that for myself already ... How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.

How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.


what is then the role of an Almighty when there is self determination (I've done that for myself already) that is then used to suit their 4th century political agenda ...

they are not theists, they are simply equivocal "religionists".


- the misinterpretation of God would preclude their discovery not their existence and is the real reason verification has not been accomplished by humanity.

You mean you don't believe in free will?

Ya know, Breezewood isn't interested in pursuing your question, but I am curious.

You have claimed, on this very thread, that the entirety of the universe - up to, and including the very evolution of our species, and, one must assume, the development of the individuals within that species, yourself, and myself included - I'm curious how you reconcile that predestination with the concept of free will?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yes, he does have a one track mind. I never claimed specific individuals were predestined, just merely beings that know and create. There is no conflict that I am aware of.

.

Ya know, Breezewood isn't interested in pursuing your question, but I am curious.

not to an ad hominem accusation, bing knows perfectly well a free Spirit is an anathema to his religion and has been disdained since the 4th century.

I never claimed specific individuals were predestined, just merely beings that know and create.

that is the basis of 4th century christanity.

 

[sealybobo]

The potential for everything which is possible and has come to pass was controlled by the laws of nature. You can either believe that or you can believe in a special creative act of God. The reality is that we do live in a universe where given enough time and the right conditions beings that know and create will eventually arise.

Sure they are. However it doesn't follow that everything that has the potential to heppen, will, and is, in fact, predestined to happen. Blue flames have the poitential to com flying out of my ass. Just how likely do you suppose the actuality of that happening is? How "predestined"is that event? Potential does not equate predestined. It only equates possible.

You are free to believe that only because it did come to pass. It did so in the only way possible for nature to know itself. Life was preordained by the laws of nature.

That's funny. Because you proclaim it so, it is so. You really have no understanding at all about the scientific method, do you?

I proclaim it because that's what the evidence shows. The universe has become self aware. What greater thing is there?

No, there isn't evidence of that. Just because man became self aware is, in no way, evidence that the universe is self aware. In fact, you are trying to ascribe to the universe something that science does not support - that the universe is a living organism, let alone a self aware living organism.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Are stars and planets alive? I think they are. If they have a hot core

 

[ding]

I agree. We can not directly prove the supernatural through the natural. Which begs the question, why do people keep demanding that we do? That seems illogical at best and disingenuous at worst. I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I've done that for myself already. That is a decision each person must make for himself. I am trying to prove that there is evidence that can be used to inform that decision. How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.

.

I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I've done that for myself already ... How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.

How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.


what is then the role of an Almighty when there is self determination (I've done that for myself already) that is then used to suit their 4th century political agenda ...

they are not theists, they are simply equivocal "religionists".


- the misinterpretation of God would preclude their discovery not their existence and is the real reason verification has not been accomplished by humanity.

You mean you don't believe in free will?

Ya know, Breezewood isn't interested in pursuing your question, but I am curious.

You have claimed, on this very thread, that the entirety of the universe - up to, and including the very evolution of our species, and, one must assume, the development of the individuals within that species, yourself, and myself included - I'm curious how you reconcile that predestination with the concept of free will?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yes, he does have a one track mind. I never claimed specific individuals were predestined, just merely beings that know and create. There is no conflict that I am aware of.

Why are we predestined? Nothing at the BB shows that.

The Laws of Nature which came into existence when space and time were created.

 

[ding]

Sure they are. However it doesn't follow that everything that has the potential to heppen, will, and is, in fact, predestined to happen. Blue flames have the poitential to com flying out of my ass. Just how likely do you suppose the actuality of that happening is? How "predestined"is that event? Potential does not equate predestined. It only equates possible.

You are free to believe that only because it did come to pass. It did so in the only way possible for nature to know itself. Life was preordained by the laws of nature.

That's funny. Because you proclaim it so, it is so. You really have no understanding at all about the scientific method, do you?

I proclaim it because that's what the evidence shows. The universe has become self aware. What greater thing is there?

No, there isn't evidence of that. Just because man became self aware is, in no way, evidence that the universe is self aware. In fact, you are trying to ascribe to the universe something that science does not support - that the universe is a living organism, let alone a self aware living organism.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Are stars and planets alive? I think they are. If they have a hot core

That would be stellar evolution and no, they are not alive.

 

[ding]

I agree. We can not directly prove the supernatural through the natural. Which begs the question, why do people keep demanding that we do? That seems illogical at best and disingenuous at worst. I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I've done that for myself already. That is a decision each person must make for himself. I am trying to prove that there is evidence that can be used to inform that decision. How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.

.

I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I've done that for myself already ... How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.

How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.


what is then the role of an Almighty when there is self determination (I've done that for myself already) that is then used to suit their 4th century political agenda ...

they are not theists, they are simply equivocal "religionists".


- the misinterpretation of God would preclude their discovery not their existence and is the real reason verification has not been accomplished by humanity.

You mean you don't believe in free will?

Ya know, Breezewood isn't interested in pursuing your question, but I am curious.

You have claimed, on this very thread, that the entirety of the universe - up to, and including the very evolution of our species, and, one must assume, the development of the individuals within that species, yourself, and myself included - I'm curious how you reconcile that predestination with the concept of free will?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yes, he does have a one track mind. I never claimed specific individuals were predestined, just merely beings that know and create. There is no conflict that I am aware of.

.

Ya know, Breezewood isn't interested in pursuing your question, but I am curious.

not to an ad hominem accusation, bing knows perfectly well a free Spirit is an anathema to his religion and has been disdained since the 4th century.

I never claimed specific individuals were predestined, just merely beings that know and create.

that is the basis of 4th century christanity.

That was even more interesting than the 89th time you told that to me.

 

[Czernobog]

I think the question is whether there is a possibility of coming to a valid conclusion on the existence of god by using the tools of science.

It's NOT whether you can study stuff. Anyone can do that.

The point I'd like to make is that science is never going to answer the question of whether god exists regardless of how much you study.

The problem is that the tool wasn't designed for that purpose.

I agree. We can not directly prove the supernatural through the natural. Which begs the question, why do people keep demanding that we do? That seems illogical at best and disingenuous at worst. I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I've done that for myself already. That is a decision each person must make for himself. I am trying to prove that there is evidence that can be used to inform that decision. How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.

.

I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I've done that for myself already ... How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.

How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.


what is then the role of an Almighty when there is self determination (I've done that for myself already) that is then used to suit their 4th century political agenda ...

they are not theists, they are simply equivocal "religionists".


- the misinterpretation of God would preclude their discovery not their existence and is the real reason verification has not been accomplished by humanity.

You mean you don't believe in free will?

Ya know, Breezewood isn't interested in pursuing your question, but I am curious.

You have claimed, on this very thread, that the entirety of the universe - up to, and including the very evolution of our species, and, one must assume, the development of the individuals within that species, yourself, and myself included - I'm curious how you reconcile that predestination with the concept of free will?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yes, he does have a one track mind. I never claimed specific individuals were predestined, just merely beings that know and create. There is no conflict that I am aware of.

You'll forgive me if I don't see the distinction. So, you are claiming that we, as a race, were predestined to exist, but that is as far as predestination goes?

 

[ding]

You mean you don't believe in free will?

.

You mean you don't believe in free will?

View attachment 106678


that's 4th century christianity, free will is a primary denial of your book - please refute the proof, your ad hominem attacks only verify the veracity of your depth -

just defending your awful religion is all that is needed for a forum.


so you believe you discovered the christian god ... are they speaking to you.

Is it possible for you to be anymore evasive? Do you believe in free will? Yes or no?

.

How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.

Is it possible for you to be anymore evasive? Do you believe in free will? Yes or no?

it is your inturpritation beuing discussed.

defend your religion, your ad hominem attack (You mean you don't believe in free will?) is not the subject and serves no purpose for a discussion board.

It goes to your comment about the role of an Almighty when there is self determination. We do have a choice. That choice is called free will. You either believe in it or you believe in fatalism. Your call. You seem like a fatalistic person to me.

.

It goes to your comment about the role of an Almighty when there is self determination. We do have a choice. That choice is called free will. You either believe in it or you believe in fatalism. Your call. You seem like a fatalistic person to me.

your response is ridiculous - your history is repression, there is no free will when you murder who disagree with you - defend your bankrupt religion there is no greater intellectual dead end than 4th century christianity.

It's like you are a drone.

 

[Czernobog]

Sure they are. However it doesn't follow that everything that has the potential to heppen, will, and is, in fact, predestined to happen. Blue flames have the poitential to com flying out of my ass. Just how likely do you suppose the actuality of that happening is? How "predestined"is that event? Potential does not equate predestined. It only equates possible.

You are free to believe that only because it did come to pass. It did so in the only way possible for nature to know itself. Life was preordained by the laws of nature.

That's funny. Because you proclaim it so, it is so. You really have no understanding at all about the scientific method, do you?

I proclaim it because that's what the evidence shows. The universe has become self aware. What greater thing is there?

No, there isn't evidence of that. Just because man became self aware is, in no way, evidence that the universe is self aware. In fact, you are trying to ascribe to the universe something that science does not support - that the universe is a living organism, let alone a self aware living organism.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Are stars and planets alive? I think they are. If they have a hot core

Really? So, you think that stars are animate beings? Because I'm pretty sure that science has determined, for instance, that the sun is an inanimate object. I could be mistaken. Can you direct me to any studies, or research that has determined otherwise?

 

[ding]

I agree. We can not directly prove the supernatural through the natural. Which begs the question, why do people keep demanding that we do? That seems illogical at best and disingenuous at worst. I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I've done that for myself already. That is a decision each person must make for himself. I am trying to prove that there is evidence that can be used to inform that decision. How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.

.

I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I've done that for myself already ... How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.

How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.


what is then the role of an Almighty when there is self determination (I've done that for myself already) that is then used to suit their 4th century political agenda ...

they are not theists, they are simply equivocal "religionists".


- the misinterpretation of God would preclude their discovery not their existence and is the real reason verification has not been accomplished by humanity.

You mean you don't believe in free will?

Ya know, Breezewood isn't interested in pursuing your question, but I am curious.

You have claimed, on this very thread, that the entirety of the universe - up to, and including the very evolution of our species, and, one must assume, the development of the individuals within that species, yourself, and myself included - I'm curious how you reconcile that predestination with the concept of free will?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yes, he does have a one track mind. I never claimed specific individuals were predestined, just merely beings that know and create. There is no conflict that I am aware of.

You'll forgive me if I don't see the distinction. So, you are claiming that we, as a race, were predestined to exist, but that is as far as predestination goes?

The distinction is at the evolutionary stage, where the next leap will logically be consciousness. That's where I think it is going.

Our race specifically? I don't know judging from nature whoever does it will most likely have four limbs,two eyes, two nostrils, two ears, opposable thumbs and a large central nervous system.

 

[sealybobo]

You are free to believe that only because it did come to pass. It did so in the only way possible for nature to know itself. Life was preordained by the laws of nature.

That's funny. Because you proclaim it so, it is so. You really have no understanding at all about the scientific method, do you?

I proclaim it because that's what the evidence shows. The universe has become self aware. What greater thing is there?

No, there isn't evidence of that. Just because man became self aware is, in no way, evidence that the universe is self aware. In fact, you are trying to ascribe to the universe something that science does not support - that the universe is a living organism, let alone a self aware living organism.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Are stars and planets alive? I think they are. If they have a hot core

Really? So, you think that stars are animate beings? Because I'm pretty sure that science has determined, for instance, that the sun is an inanimate object. I could be mistaken. Can you direct me to any studies, or research that has determined otherwise?

Seems pretty animated to me. Has a pulse and one day will die.

And if life comes from stars they also give birth

 

[ding]

That's funny. Because you proclaim it so, it is so. You really have no understanding at all about the scientific method, do you?

I proclaim it because that's what the evidence shows. The universe has become self aware. What greater thing is there?

No, there isn't evidence of that. Just because man became self aware is, in no way, evidence that the universe is self aware. In fact, you are trying to ascribe to the universe something that science does not support - that the universe is a living organism, let alone a self aware living organism.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Are stars and planets alive? I think they are. If they have a hot core

Really? So, you think that stars are animate beings? Because I'm pretty sure that science has determined, for instance, that the sun is an inanimate object. I could be mistaken. Can you direct me to any studies, or research that has determined otherwise?

Seems pretty animated to me. Has a pulse and one day will die.

And if life comes from stars they also give birth

That's not how it works.

The 7 Characteristics of Life

 

[Czernobog]

That's funny. Because you proclaim it so, it is so. You really have no understanding at all about the scientific method, do you?

I proclaim it because that's what the evidence shows. The universe has become self aware. What greater thing is there?

No, there isn't evidence of that. Just because man became self aware is, in no way, evidence that the universe is self aware. In fact, you are trying to ascribe to the universe something that science does not support - that the universe is a living organism, let alone a self aware living organism.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Are stars and planets alive? I think they are. If they have a hot core

Really? So, you think that stars are animate beings? Because I'm pretty sure that science has determined, for instance, that the sun is an inanimate object. I could be mistaken. Can you direct me to any studies, or research that has determined otherwise?

Seems pretty animated to me. Has a pulse and one day will die.

And if life comes from stars they also give birth

Okay. Now we have moved solidly from the scientific, into the metaphysical. As a rationalist, while that is fun, it has no practical purpose.

We might as we'll talk about the giant space teapot orbiting the opposite side of the sun, or the Great Invisible Spaghetti Monster. There is just as much objective evidence to support those "hypothesis".

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[BreezeWood]

.

We might as we'll talk about the giant space teapot orbiting the opposite side of the sun

as far as any resolutions that is what has been accomplished so far ...

 

[Czernobog]

.

We might as we'll talk about the giant space teapot orbiting the opposite side of the sun

as far as any resolutions that is what has been accomplished so far ...

Lmfao[emoji23]

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[ding]

Is God vs Satan - Final Battle how the world supposed to end?

 

[WillReadmore]

Is God vs Satan - Final Battle how the world supposed to end?

"Was supposed to end"???

We have a very good idea what the future has in store for this universe.

But, that won't happen until a LONG long time after our planet no longer exists as a planet.